Local missing persons sites

Archive

Categories

My blog has recently been added to Blog Nation, which is part of one of the largest networks of blog directories on the Web. Please visit my blog's personal page to vote for my blog and comment to other blog users.

Blog Stats

Visitor map

People v. Drew Peterson juror questionnaire

This week, jury selection for the Drew Peterson murder trial took place. We’ve obtained the questionnaire that potential jurors filled out in order to be considered to serve on the jury for the trial which starts next week.

I watched that video again, and I am at a total loss as to understand why those men acted the way they did, and who they were trying to impress. I cannot imagine who they are pandering to, and I cannot fathom that anyone, pro-defense or not, would see them as professional dignified, respectable defense lawyers just doing their job. They are wise-cracking jokes concerning the alleged murder of a mother of two, not vying for a job opening in a stand-up comedy club.

I also can’t imagine these jerks not getting at least some negative feedback from their unadoring public. I have never, ever seen the likes of these three buffoons. They are a discredit to their profession in how they conduct themselves in a serious case.

I watched it again also, and I just do not know what to think. I know what I want to say, but I will refrain. 3 sick people they are, vile and disgusting. There is nothing professional, dignified or respectable about those 3 clowns

We can learn a lot about society in the way we treat one another, including and especially persons charged with heinous or ignoble crimes such as Mr. Peterson. Our Constitution guarantees each and every citizen the right to a fair and impartial trial governed by established procedures. It also mandates that counsel for the accused be zealous, faithful and competent. These 3 individuals know this, believe this and wear their zealous, faithful competence on their sleeve. The fact that the Media Circus following this trial asks open ended non-legal questions in an effort to probe weaknesses in their case, and too because going against popular opinion makes for great entertainment, should not diminish the seriousness of these charges, or these very capable defenders. Perhaps some Sunni justice in Saudi Arabia, where news of that swiftness is measured by the number of U-Tube hits a certain meting of punishment receives, will temper the public’s desire for impromptu newscasts such a the one seen here. In some countries they just don’t mess around.

Gerardo, Peterson will certainly receive the full benefit of a fair trial with more legal representation than most. He’s at no disadvantage.

I’m sure his defense team will represent him to the best of their abilities in the courtroom and that’s what they should do.

Did you now that it’s pretty widely assumed that this team is working pro bono in exchange for the media coverage? Are you aware that Peterson and his lawyers have a PR firm working on their behalf, arranging and advertising these press conferences before and after each court appearance? Did you know that Joel Brodsky was bartering interview time with his client in exchange for plugs for his sports bar? Do you know that the he was also marketing a video package of Peterson and his “fiancee” in exchange for $200,00? Peterson and his lawyers are willing participants in what you call the “media circus”.

No one is forcing these badly-behaved men to go before the cameras or to say callous and incendiary things about the victims and witnesses in this court case.

The public scoffing and laughter is uncalled for, unprofessional and reflects badly on them, IMO.

Yes, I did notice the gentlemen behind the three jokesters weren’t as amused as they were with themselves. Nor do I think the media was roaring, especially after one reporter reminded them that Stacy is on the defense witness list when they were amusing themselves by saying “who,” when asked about Stacy.

Oh, the hell with it. We waste too much time we can’t get back paying attention to anything they say.

I’m waiting for the court testimony now. I am especially interested in the testimony about how Drew Peterson was at home during the time of Kathleen’s death, as Brodsky bumbled about the other day. That must be the receipts from the red alibi folder he’s talking about, and his son, Tom’s, testimony that he was with them the whole weekend.

I believe they have three expert witnesses who are going to testify that Kathleen’s death was absolutely an accident. I wonder if they ditched Dr. Jentzen, who insinuated it’s still possible to breath after death, and then drown, as in Kathleen’s case. He should take a seat next to whoever it is that told Greenberg gophers can bruise dead people.

Wow what a bunch of Morons! That Lopez tries to act like Joe Pesci and he is little like him too lol. Kind of funny like a mobster want to be. :) Joel is Joel, always a basket case, stuttering, and sweating,. I am surprised he hasn’t fallen asleep yet. Although the trial has yet to begin. The attorneys better make sure they have a sleep over the night before so they can make sure Joel makes it to court on time. I am sure Sea Hag will be there to with her devoted love, and obsession for Drew. Enough with the games little boys, time to get this show on the road, so we can see Justice finally be served! I can’t wait to see you all get your dupas kicked in the court room :) Joel don’t start your crying either, you know you can’t shut me up!

Drew Peterson’s lawyers are getting death threats, according to the Twitter feed of one of his attorneys.

It reads, “Now we are getting death threats.”

Joel Brodsky, a member of the legal team defending the former Bolingbrook cop accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004, confirmed in an interview there have been recent death threats, but did not elaborate.

A spokesman for the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office declined to comment, and a spokesman for the Will County Sheriff’s Office couldn’t immediately be reached.

Opening statements in Peterson’s murder trial begin in Will County Tuesday. Twelve jurors and four alternates were picked this week to hear the case.

I understand them wanting to defend their client. But do they really have to make a mockery of a missing woman? I had a hard time handling seeing Jose Baez throughout the Casey Anthony trial but I have to say he actually has more class than these guys do. Jose is now making money selling his book so these guys all know they will have some kind of paycheck coming in book deals and being called on by various shows to be on their panel. I just wish no one bought the books or had them on the air.

My prayers go out to Kathleen and Stacy’s children and loved ones who have to hear such insensitive statements about them.

Stacy who? Maybe they will remember her as Drew’s alibi in the Kathleen Savo death. Seems like good bring her up and wonder where she is? By the way Joel, where did you deliver that subpoena to? Since you are wondering if she got it.

I just watched Insession, where Beth Karas gave her opinion about the jury questionnaire, and talked about wondering how the defense is going to show Drew’s whereabouts during the death of KS. She’s not impressed with the questionnaire at all. They didn’t ask them what their perception of Peterson is, and they didn’t question them at all about Stacy. She said she can’t see how Peterson’s whereabouts can be verified, or proven, without him taking the stand. She did say that they’d likely have his son testify. In that regard, I cannot imagine the jury being impressed with putting on a young man who was a boy at the time and can’t give realistic testimony covering his father’s whereabouts 24/7. Are they kidding? Are they using Tom Peterson as a tool to have the jury be sympathic enough to even consider his testimony. I certainly would be apprehensive about it as a juror, and even question why they would put him in that awkward, no-win situation!

The other thing is, Greenberg was interviewed, describing how, among other things, Brodsky’s opening is going to show the jury that her death was an accident. He just can’t stop talking. Another one. Give him a forum, and blah, blah, blah. Jokes, descriptions of the opening statement. Bah. More on Greenberg’s loose lips later.

What I really, firmly believe is this defense is more far fetched in their so-called theories than how they describe the prosecution’s case. They’ve become so bizarre in the way they’ve been acting and joking, I think they know they’re going down with the sinking ship. A “killer jury,” no one is going to believe Pastor Schori, gophers bumping into and bruising dead bodies (heavens, I hope that was just a sick joke and not what they’re going to tell the jury), and describing the opening statement as the next Gettysburg Address sounds like a futile attempt in acting assured and confident. They sound like a bunch of idiots, with no class whatsoever. At least they’re lucky that Insession offers them face time, which is what it seems the three main law dudes are all about. I don’t think they’re coming across as professional, dignified, assured defense attorneys at all.

The defense is going to stress that people who are speaking out now did not come forward after KS’s death (we know that’s a famous piece of bs that comes from Greenberg). I think we’ve shown that is not accurate.